New York was the subject of a study by Stanford professor Caroline Hoxby. By comparing the progress of students who were accepted to a Charter school by random lottery and those who were not accepted and remained in public schools, Hoxby was able to create a reliable comparison between similar students.

The results showed children who attended Charter schools performed better in math and English. The key component of Hoxby’s study is that the school is the only difference between the two groups she studied. Parents were equally motivated, the children were equally qualified, and the lottery was random.

For Charter founders, teachers and board members, these findings reinforce their day-to-day experience working with individual students. The research dispels the myth that Charter successes have only been because they “cream” the best students. But research is not only valuable to prove a theory true, but also to direct next steps.

Missouri is one of the states that Dr. Hoxby’s study identifies as hosting Charter schools whose students showed significantly higher gains than their public school counterparts. This kind of definitive research is vitally useful in crafting a good education policy – one that produces measurable results.

But how will this information filter into policies, especially considering Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s (@arneduncan) recent tour promoting swift, serious education reforms on the state level? A study conducted by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory specifically examined how policymakers access and apply research evidence. Through focus groups and surveys, they found that research played a minor role in policy-shaping discourse.

“Study participants asserted that political perspectives, public sentiment, potential legal pitfalls, economic considerations, pressure from the media, and the welfare of individuals all take precedence over research evidence in influencing decisions. In focus groups and interviews, participants did not mention any ‘breakthrough research’ nor did they cite any findings that they felt had a dramatic effect on practice or policy.” ( p. 0iv)

Part of their research examined how researchers might present their findings to policymakers in a more useful format. Participants identified a lack of sophistication in finding, analyzing and applying data, as well as an apprehension about the accuracy of research. That is certainly understandable in a culture rich with data and research: sifting through a great wealth of often dense, technical research to find applicable, trusted, complete research requires rigor and time.

“Both policymakers and practitioners expressed a preference for brief reports (no more than one to two pages), in a larger font, and written in nontechnical language. They also identified a need for research that is locally relevant and credible, includes case studies, and offers analysis across multiple studies.” (p. Oiv)

The authors stressed that research has many auxiliary or indirect paths to influencing public policy. For instance, there is a heavier reliance on research by school administrators as they form local policies. Research may be highlighted by the media, or used by the reform-minded to frame a policy conversation. But in any of these scenarios, policymakers stressed that in order for it to be useful in sculpting reform policies, they had to receive that information from a trusted intermediary.

The Hoxby study in particular is a seminal piece of research that has already found a life in the reporting of major national newspapers, such as the New York Post, the Washington Post and the New York Times. The challenge in Missouri will be to help explain how this study applies to Missouri students: what the current Charter school environment looks like in Missouri, and how we can use policy as a bridge to increased achievement.

“Clearly, the formulation of policy is a balancing act among what is right, what is known, what is desired, and what is possible,” (p. 1) note the study’s authors, and good research can fortify that framework to result in truly effective reforms.

Additional Resources:

Caroline Hoxby was in St. Louis earlier this year to talk about her research on Charter School performance.

Charter School Research and Economics Part 1


Charter School Research and Economics Part 2


STUDIES MENTIONED ABOVE:

Caroline Hoxby’s Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States

NREL: Toward a Research Agenda for Understanding and Improving the Use of Research Evidence

In 2007, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Richard Callahan ruled against the school district plaintiffs in favor of the state and 3 taxpayer-intervenors.  Today’s concurrent ruling comes after the school districts appealed that decision to the State Supreme Court, and ends the long, expensive court battle.

The decision that Missouri is meeting its obligation to fund public schools is prudent and saves taxpayers from shouldering billions of additional blank-check state spending for public education.  It has, however, cost both taxpayers and students.  School district plaintiffs spent taxpayer dollars, and taxpayers also support state legal services that defended Missouri’s formula.  Students lost out on millions of dollars that could have been spent in a classroom, but were instead spent in the courtroom.

This trial and the resounding dismissal of the plaintiff districts’ claims offer several distinct lessons as Missouri pursues excellence in education.

The State Supreme Court will not be the “good cop” and circumvent the powers of the legislative branch to appropriate funds. When local tax levies and lobbying efforts failed to change the funding formula to the extent that these school districts desired and they turned to Constitutional arguments to secure more funding, the court had this to say:

“Notably, the introductory clause… concerning the ‘diffusion of knowledge’ outlines the purpose and subject of Missouri’s public education system. But, it provides no specific directive or standard for how the State must accomplish a ‘diffusion of knowledge.’ Plaintiffs are attempting to read a separate funding requirement into [the clause] that would require the legislature to provide “adequate” education funding in excess of the 25-percent requirement… Such language does not exist….

Reading a free-standing obligation to provide certain school funding into the introductory language… would be contrary to the specific flexibility afforded the legislature…”

More money does not equal better education. Missouri cannot spend its way to excellent, or even adequate performance.   State funding is merely one aspect of the framework set up to house public education: it is how we as a state move resources toward the goal of educating our children.  Those resources can be spent wisely or poorly.  They can be spent on programs, materials and staff that educate effectively, but they may be spent on methods that don’t work.  The structure into which we put our resources is at least as important as how much we spend.

A new era of education reform is coming. Education Secretary Arne Duncan spoke in St. Louis last week, and presented a new way of thinking about funding education: tie it to reforms that work.

Announcing billions of dollars in grants available for education, Duncan gave caveats that grants would be awarded where innovation was the driving force. He stressed that Missouri should consider having a portfolio of options to offer children with different needs and strengths.

“In St. Louis, the city and Missouri the state has a chance to compete for unprecedented discretionary resources,” said Duncan. “In every one of the those applications, we’re going to look for capacity, we’re going to look for a visionary plan, we’re going to look for someone who wants to challenge the status quo and we’re going to look for folks who are willing to collaborate, and if St. Louis and Missouri can do that, you have the chance to do something very special in the years ahead.”

More than anything, the conclusion of the Adequacy Trial offers us a clear opportunity to shift our focus to a new way of thinking about improving Missouri education and also the way we can fund that goal.

Photo Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/changedotgov/ / CC BY 2.0

Missouri Supreme Court Opinion available HERE.